BVA9505710 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 061     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan,
Puerto Rico

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of service connection for a chronic pharyngitis.

2.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of service connection for allergic bronchitis

3.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of service connection a psychiatric disability.

4.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of service connection loss of vision.

5.  Entitlement to an increased rating for maxillary sinusitis,
currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Mark D. Hindin, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from October 1954 to October 1956.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) denied entitlement to
service connection for a nervous disorder in a decision dated in
June 1981.  The Board denied entitlement to service connection
for chronic pharyngitis, allergic bronchitis, and a loss of
vision in a decision dated in August 1988.

In statements dated in May and June 1991, the veteran made
contentions which could be construed as a request for
reconsideration of a March 1991 Board decision.  That decision
held that new and material evidence had not been submitted to
reopen claims of entitlement to service connection for a
psychiatric disability, hearing loss disability, pharyngitis,
bronchitis, and vision loss.  However , new and material evidence
in the form of service department records have not been received,
nor has there been any allegation of reliance upon false or
fraudulent evidence submitted by or on behalf of the veteran, as
is required for reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (1994).
Further, the veteran has not submitted a motion for
reconsideration which sets forth specifically alleged obvious
error or errors of fact or law in the prior decision, as is
required under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001 (1994)

This matter arises from an October 1992 rating decision in which
the regional office (RO) held that new and material evidence had
not been submitted to reopen claims of service connection for
chronic pharyngitis, allergic bronchitis, a nervous condition,
and loss of vision, and confirmed a 30 percent evaluation for
maxillary sinusitis.  Consideration of the issues other than
entitlement to an increased rating for maxillary sinusitis is
being deferred pending completion of the development requested in
this remand.

REMAND

The veteran has not undergone a Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) examination to evaluate his sinusitis since January 1986.
The veteran submitted a statement dated in August 1992 from
Doctor A. M. Portalatin, in which it was reported that he had
been treating the veteran and that the veteran's sinusitis had
been worsening lately.  Records of this treatment are not part of
the claims folder.  VA has a duty to obtain all known relevant
records and afford current examinations where there is evidence
of a change in the disability.  See Littke v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 90 (1991).  See also Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App.
363 (1992).

In view of the forgoing, this case is REMANDED for the following:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he furnish information as to
any recent treatment he has received for
maxillary sinusitis.  The RO should then
take all necessary steps to obtain those
records, including treatment records from
Dr. A. M. Portalatin,  and associate them
with the claims folder.

2.  The RO should then schedule the veteran
for a comprehensive VA ear, nose, and
throat examination in order to evaluate his
maxillary sinusitis.  This study must be
conducted in accordance with the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  All indicated tests must be
conducted.  The claims file must be made
available to and reviewed by the examiner
prior to the requested examination.  A
complete rationale for any opinion
expressed must be provided.

3.  Following completion of the foregoing,
the RO must review the claims folder and
ensure that all of the foregoing
development actions have been conducted and
completed in full.  The RO should also
ensure that any documents requiring
translation be translated and that
previously obtained translations are
accurate.

4.  If any development is incomplete,
including if the requested examination does
not include all test reports, special
studies, or opinions requested, appropriate
corrective action is to be implemented.

If after completion of the requested development the benefits
sought have not been granted, the veteran and his representative
should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and
be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.  Thereafter,
following compliance with all other procedures relative to the
processing of appeals, the case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate consideration.  No action is required of
the veteran until he receives further notice.

          LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted

before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the
Board for a determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to
an individual member of the Board.

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals.  This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board
on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).